In the video, and in the article, the local law enforcement again repeat the mantra she was “lucky” and it is best to avoid confrontation/contact with attackers. However, does anyone consider that the “avoidance principle” is exactly what empowers these attackers to escalate their activity?

Two teenage boys, one 16 and one 18, grope young Ms. Dang, and let’s say she just took off running, what do you think these boys will do next time? While I certainly agree that a person should never put themselves knowingly in a position of danger, once that danger is encountered I do not subscribe to automatically thinking the best option is to engage the “victim” mentality.

Obviously Ms. Dang was prepared, and well trained, to defend herself. Why should she be diminished, or even admonished, from the capacity to do just that “defend herself”?

Many people mistakenly believe one of the roles of government is to protect them from physical harm. However, this is not the case. One only has to look up the concept of “affirmative duty” to understand what the Supreme Court has defined as the role of any government entity in regard to protection of citizenry; both at Local/State and Federal levels. In short it can be encapsulated as:

The burden to defend and or use deadly force, is a right that lies with you personally to act accordingly, and appropriately, should you fear for your life and/or limb. The government does not have any affirmative duty to do this for you.

The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State’s knowledge of the individual’s predicament, or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitations which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf, through imprisonment, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty.

If you are under the care or custody of the ‘state’ then, and only then, do they have a specific duty to protect you from harm. Or, if the ‘state’ has diminished your capacity to protect yourself, then they “may” arguably be in a position of affirmative duty, but only to the extent the state has diminished your capacity to act on your own behalf.

In all other considerations the “state” only has the duty to enforce the law.

If law enforcement has no affirmative duty to protect the citizenry, which they absolutely do not, and the police have argued numerous times in court to prove they are under no responsibility to protect a person from physical harm, then why should the group without affirmative duty be espousing that an individual remove their legal and constitutional right to protect themselves.?

Given the Trayvon Martin case and the subsequent move to diminish Stand Your Ground type laws, you can see what’s at stake here. The Police or Law Enforcement are under no legal obligation to protect you, yet there are contingents within the primary class of dominant perpetrators (yes, those are black – and no, it’s not racist to admit it) who would specifically restrict you from protecting yourself.

Think about it. On one hand you have the government telling you “do not expect help from the police to avoid harm”, and on the other hand you have government telling you “you cannot, or should not, actively defend yourself” from the harm they refuse to stop you being exposed to.

This principle lies solidly, albeit silently, within the construct of the Zimmerman case.

WASHINGTON STATE – Any time you’re in an intense, potentially life-threatening situation, the body naturally kicks into “fight or flight” mode. It’s an unconscious reaction where — in a matter of adrenaline-pumped nanoseconds — you size up the danger and either a) fight your way to safety or, if the perceived danger is too great b) flee the scene. If you’re Priscilla Dang, though, sometimes you do both at the same time.

Dang was on a run in a Vancouver, Wash., neighborhood last Friday when two teenagers on bikes, one 16, the other 18, approached her from behind. “One went in front and made eye contact with me like a smirk, like I thought he was saying ‘Hi,'” said Dang of the encounter to KATU. “The next thing I knew I was pretty much groped on my bottom behind left side.”

Unfortunately for the alleged gropers, the 23-year-old woman has taken kung-fu lessons since she was 5. Her family owns the Summit Wushu Academy, an Oregon martial arts studio.

She instantly pushed one of the teenagers to the ground and made him apologize. When the second teenager called her a derogatory term, Dang says she snapped, hitting him in the face several times while simultaneously dodging his punches. According to The Columbian, when he pulled out a knife she used his bike as a shield until a passerby showed up and called 911.

Both suspects fled the scene and were later apprehended by sheriff’s deputies, reports KPTV. The 18-year-old suspect is now facing fourth-degree assault charges, while the 16-year-old will be judged by a juvenile prosecutor. (read more)

It must have came as a surprise that such a smoking hot babe could kick their butts.

Given her own account if she had been a man, some idiot cop or DA would have pressed charges for her assaulting the second guy before he assaulted her. However; given the context of the situation, the perps had already participated in a conspiracy to subject her to unwelcome sexual contact and by refusing to back off they had indicated an intent to commit a more serious sexual assault. Unfortunately; if this woman hadn’t been a martial arts expert and had used a gun to defend herself instead, it is certain that she would have been vigorously prosecuted.

I just worry that this won’t be the end of it. She’ll become a target now for these animals and their friends. She humiliated them, and they’ll definitely want some payback.

Why some women feel the need to go jogging, hiking, etc. alone in an obviously isolated and dangerous environment eludes me. Martial arts are great, but commonsense is better. I’m not blaming the victim, but why risk rape or death jogging alone when you get plenty of cardiovascular exercise at the Dojo?

hehe..if you check out that link to the Summit Academy.. lists head instructors as Phillip and Peter Dang..erm, I’m kinda thinking those gentlemen be related to this young lady.
I’m thinking going after her again would be a very, very, VERY dumb thing to do.
They’d no doubt get a lot more ‘payback’ than expected 😉

You have to be careful to not cross the line, but family can make it very clear to criminals that they will stand together to protect their own. When I asked if I could bail my brother’s killer out of jail and take him into my custody, his defense attorney was eager to see him stay in jail.

I haven’t seen any info about the two young perps so I don’t know their race, potential gang connections or criminal histories might be. If they are members of a gang, demand that the police share info on their associates.

I can’t disagree more, Chuck. We can’t let thugs and criminals strip us of our freedoms, forcing us to hide in our houses out of terror. There’s a great path where I live too — paved, circling a small lake, perfect for jogging or just taking a walk and feeding the ducks, and there’s rarely anyone on it, despite the population density of this area. Most joggers stick to the sidewalks. We’ve become a nation of victims — victims of fear.

We don’t need more instructions to “avoid conflict” and “hide in the dojo”. We need more people with kung fu and concealed carry licenses out there going for a nice walk on a nice day and incidentally drop-kicking any and all thugs. So many people telling us to act like scared rabbits is why thugs are so emboldened. I’d rather go out for a walk, confront thugs and die fighting them than cower in my house and leave a world of cowardice and criminals for my children to inherit.

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.

RCW 9A.16.020
Use of force — When lawful.

The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:

(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer’s direction;

(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;

(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;

(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person’s presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;

(5) Whenever used by a carrier of passengers or the carrier’s authorized agent or servant, or other person assisting them at their request in expelling from a carriage, railway car, vessel, or other vehicle, a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable regulation prescribed for the conduct of passengers, if such vehicle has first been stopped and the force used is not more than is necessary to expel the offender with reasonable regard to the offender’s personal safety;

(6) Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person.

James, if she’s prosecuted, and found not guilty because of self defense, the state is on the hook for all of her expenses.